|
|
Enron Mail |
Thanks for the update and an the encouragement.
-----Original Message----- From: =09"JOHN KLAUBERG" <jklauber@LLGM.COM<@ENRON [mailto:IMCEANOTES-+22JO= HN+20KLAUBERG+22+20+3Cjklauber+40LLGM+2ECOM+3E+40ENRON@ENRON.com]=20 Sent:=09Friday, August 10, 2001 9:07 PM To:=09Sanders, Richard B. Subject:=09Fwd: El Paso responds... Richard: fyi, I thought I would forward the attached copy of an El Paso pr= ess release that our Firm librarian forwarded to me about El Paso's respons= e to certain press reports regarding its case at FERC. I hope that you are= hanging in there. John =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D This e-mail, including attachments, contains information that is confidenti= al and may be protected by the attorney/client or other privileges. This e= -mail, including attachments, constitutes non-public information intended t= o be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If you are not an inten= ded recipient, please delete this e-mail, including attachments, and notify= me. The unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of = this e-mail, including attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 15:56:41 -0400 From: "DOUGLAS CINQUE" <DVCINQUE@LLGM.COM< To: "JOHN KLAUBERG" <JKLAUBER@LLGM.COM< Subject: El Paso responds... MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"us-ascii" Content-Disposition: inline El Paso Corporation Responds to Mischaracterizations and Inaccurate Reports= Of FERC Hearing HOUSTON, Aug. 10 /PRNewswire/ -- El Paso Corporation (NYSE: EPG - news) bel= ieves that it is necessary to respond to continuing mischaracterizations an= d inaccurate press reports regarding the recently completed Federal Energy = Regulatory Commission (FERC) hearing in which it participated. This distort= ed coverage has fostered unwarranted fears in the marketplace fueled by mis= understandings about the nature of the FERC proceeding, the testimony and e= vidence presented, and the applicable regulatory standards. ``I am very concerned that the investing public has been misled by recent r= eports describing the current state of a FERC proceeding and quoting commen= ts made by the presiding FERC administrative law judge,'' said William A. W= ise, chairman, president, and chief executive officer of El Paso Corporatio= n. ``These reports have seriously mischaracterized El Paso's actions and th= e legal standards by which those actions must be measured. I am confident t= hat once the facts are fairly evaluated and the appropriate legal standards= are applied, El Paso will be vindicated. Despite the heated rhetoric by th= e complaining parties and comments by the administrative law judge himself,= El Paso believes as a matter of law and fact that the complaining parties = have not met their burden of proof and no burdens of proof have shifted. No= other legally sustainable conclusion can be reached.'' The following facts are necessary to a complete and accurate understanding = of this administrative proceeding. In April 2000, the California Public Uti= lities Commission (CPUC) filed a complaint with the FERC, alleging that El = Paso Natural Gas Company (EPNG) improperly awarded capacity on its pipeline= to an affiliated energy marketing company, El Paso Merchant Energy (EPME).= It was also alleged that EPME had improperly been granted a discount on th= e Mojave pipeline system in violation of the FERC's marketing affiliate rul= es and had unlawfully exercised market power. For almost a year thereafter,= FERC reviewed and evaluated comments submitted by all parties and extensiv= e evidence and documents that El Paso produced. On March 28, 2001, the FERC= issued an order based on this evidence that addressed all three issues. With respect to the CPUC's allegations regarding violations of the affiliat= e regulations, FERC ruled, in an unanimous decision, that: The current El Paso contracts were awarded following an open season that was conducted in accordance with Commission rules and policies. The Commission finds no merit in the allegations that the bidding process ... was skewed to favor El Paso Merchant and that El Paso Merchant possessed certain information concerning a discount that was not available to other bidders. Further, the Commission has examined the evidence and does not find a violation of the Standards of Conduct for Interstate Pipelines with Marketing Affiliates. That same order specifically discussed the very telephone transcripts that = have been the subject of recent press coverage. Notwithstanding certain pub= lic observations of the administrative law judge in the current hearing, th= e Commission unanimously concluded that ``the transcripts do not indicate t= hat Mojave's Transportation Marketing Negotiator agreed to the tiered arran= gement sought by El Paso Merchant Energy.'' That order unequivocally held t= hat the conversation reported in the transcripts is not an affiliate standa= rd violation, concluding that under the marketing affiliate regulations, ``= Mojave was under no obligation to post affiliate discount information until= the time at which gas first flowed under the transaction.'' The market power issues were set for an evidentiary hearing, which commence= d on May 14, 2001, and concluded in June. On June 11, 2001, the FERC granted rehearing of its March decision solely t= o resolve any factual issues raised by the allegations of the CPUC's compla= int concerning affiliate abuse and violation of the FERC's Standards of Con= duct. That hearing commenced on August 2 and concluded on August 6. EPNG, E= PME, and the CPUC each called one witness to testify on these issues. The C= PUC presented no new facts or evidence and relied solely on the same docume= nts that the unanimous Commission had ruled failed to prove any of the alle= ged affiliate violations. Since the FERC's unanimous March 28 decision was rendered on the basis of t= he same facts that are now a part of the evidentiary record before the judg= e, there should be no legal basis for the Commission to change that decisio= n when the case returns to it. ``Contrary to press reports, El Paso's senior executives did not refuse to = appear at the hearing,'' said Mr. Wise. ``The judge requested that some exe= cutives be available to answer his questions, and El Paso made them availab= le for that purpose. At the appropriate time, El Paso raised several legal = objections to any further El Paso witnesses being required to testify. Cont= rary to press reports, the judge agreed with El Paso's arguments and there = was no further questioning of the executives. The hearing then concluded.'' The evidence in the hearing also establishes that there is no basis for the= allegations of market power abuse. During the period from June 2000 to Mar= ch 2001, when the price of natural gas in California was sharply increasing= , pipeline capacity was plainly not being withheld from the marketplace. In= stead, the evidence demonstrates that during this crucial period, 95 percen= t of the available capacity on EPNG's pipeline was being utilized. In fact,= on many days utilization by EPNG's customers amounted to 100 percent of th= e pipeline's available capacity. During the same period, EPNG's customers u= tilized approximately 97 percent of the pipeline's available capacity into = southern California, the region where the complaining parties allege that p= rices were significantly higher than in the rest of California. Thus, the o= bjective data conclusively demonstrate that at the times when the complaini= ng parties allege that pipeline capacity was used to manipulate natural gas= prices, the capacity on EPNG's pipeline was not being withheld, and that t= he high natural gas prices were clearly caused by other factors now widely = recognized to be responsible for the shortages experienced. All briefs in the proceeding must be filed by September 7, 2001, and the ju= dge has stated he will issue his proposed decision by October 9, 2001. In t= he event that the judge reaches a decision adverse to El Paso on the market= power issue, or reaches a different conclusion on the affiliate issues tha= n was reached by the full Commission in March 2001, El Paso will appeal the= decision to the full Commission and, if necessary thereafter, the courts. ``I am confident that, when appropriate legal standards are applied to this= case, we will be vindicated. The law and the facts are on our side,'' said= Mr. Wise. El Paso Corporation is committed to meeting energy needs throughout North A= merica and the world with operations that span the energy value chain from = wellhead to electron. The company is focused on speeding the development of= new energy sources to address critical energy shortages across the globe. = Visit El Paso at www.elpaso.com . CAUTIONARY STATEMENT REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS This release includes forward-looking statements and projections, made in r= eliance on the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation = Reform Act of 1995. The company has made every reasonable effort to ensure = that the information and assumptions on which these statements and projecti= ons are based are current, reasonable, and complete. However, a variety of = factors could cause actual results to differ materially from the projection= s, anticipated results or other expectations expressed in this release. Whi= le the company makes these statements and projections in good faith, neithe= r the company nor its management can guarantee that the anticipated future = results will be achieved. Reference should be made to the company's (and it= s affiliates') Securities and Exchange Commission filings for additional im= portant factors that may affect actual results. SOURCE: El Paso Corporation
|